How much does it go into the detail about all the behind the scenes stuff from the shows/movies?

Click to expand...

It is a gigantic 256 pages and is filled with many rare photos, including five of mine. I think Robert Greenberger managed to draw out lots of new acecdotes and information. There are numerous sidebar pieces from fans and people connected to the show. It's heavier on TOS/TAS and the TOS movies, with briefer history of TNG and the more recent series.

It's a real delight for TOS/TNG fans. The other series - not as much. My beloved DS9 rated less pages than Voyager if memory serves and that ain't right!

Click to expand...

Bob and Scott are aware that we'd love a sequel. It has to sell well first, of course. I bought two copies.

I sent in over 75 photos, and most of them to totally new to them, and yet only five made it into the book. If other contributors responded with similar enthusiasm, imagine how many more rare and unseen pics and fan anecdotes are out there, waiting to be revealed. But the first book has to sell well first.

The pic that made it into the book doesn't have my 2012 body attempting to squeeze into a 1988 sweater. Just the sweater lying on my back porch.

The top is awesome

Click to expand...

Agreed. Lana drew the art for a NZ fanzine and a Sydney fan, who screen printed stuff as a hobby, added the DATADATADATADATA background, using the logo of our newsletter (the Aussie fan club, Astrex, had a newsletter called "Data" in the mid 70s!). Mike printed a short run of white T-shirts with this design, a few white sweaters for Lana and her friends and - just for me - a sweater in exclusive TNG Operations gold!

I belatedly read this thanks to my local library (rather surprised they got it; they've cleared out their Trek fiction in the last year or so).

It has some great photos (Yoko Ono on a transporter pad and the crew of the Endeavour space shuttle in TOS movie uniforms, for instance) and a few interesting anecdotes, but the rest didn't really offer anything new or insightful.

I accept that is probably inevitable from the nature of the book, covering the whole history of Trek. That incorporates specific topics which have been the subject of their own focused and detailed books, and it could never come close to that detail.

Maybe it's designed more for people who haven't read those; since I have, it did little for me.

I also found the constant jabs at Roddenberry to be tiresome. Almost every mention of his name seemed to be associated with a negative twist. There's plenty of criticisms which can be made of him, and it's been done better elsewhere. This just became monotonous, and even quite gratuitous - several mentions of his affairs, for instance. It's more jarring given that there's no mention of Leonard Nimoy's alcoholism, the spite between Mulgrew and Ryan or countless other off-screen issues, nor are there references to other off-screen relationships (I don't think the marriage between Visitor and Siddig even rates a mention).

Not sure whether there was a definite intention to try to "dispel the Roddenberry myth" (as noted, done several times before), or if it was to spice up the unauthorised nature of the book, but it was utterly unedifying and distracting to have so much space spent on it given how shallow the coverage was generally.

Well, I consider myself a well-informed Trek fan and I found plenty of gems I didn't know before. Also, as a contributor of 95 amazing images, only five of which actually made the final cut, my mind boggles as to just how big this volume could have been, had Robert Greenberger been able to use everything, if the other pic- and sidebar-contributors sent in as much as I did. And there was also "no room" for the "Star Trek Down Under" sidebar I'd proposed for the volume, nor the meaty captions I was encouraged to send with each image.

Maybe it's designed more for people who haven't read those

Click to expand...

Who else could such a book be aimed at? The completists already know almost everything. I think Bob did a grand job at freshening up stuff many of us knew, and finding plenty of new aspects to talk about.

I also found the constant jabs at Roddenberry to be tiresome.

Click to expand...

I don't recall any. Examples? Are they really jibes, or the exhaustive, gritty honesty you seem to be wanting?

Almost every mention of his name seemed to be associated with a negative twist.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you were reading stuff into the text?

(I can imagine reader complaints if it were too sanitized, too.)

It's more jarring given that there's no mention of Leonard Nimoy's alcoholism, the spite between Mulgrew and Ryan or countless other off-screen issues, nor are there references to other off-screen relationships (I don't think the marriage between Visitor and Siddig even rates a mention).

Click to expand...

So what parts of the book would you remove to put that information in, especially since you already knew that goss anyway?

spice up the unauthorised nature of the book...

Click to expand...

Because such books without "spice" don't sell well?

But you read a free copy at the local library, so I guess you got your money's worth!

I found it an adequate book for what it was, and of course there were some new details which I had not encountered elsewhere, just that there was nothing which struck me as especially remarkable.

I was not desiring a book which aired all the dirty laundry; my point was that it was curiously focused on one person (one person in no position to answer for himself, of course).

Regrettably, I did not maintain a table of such passages. Suffice to say, it was jarring to me from a fairly early stage, which of course made latter passages stand out even more. His death in the narrative came as something of a relief that it was over - at least until the reboot, with a snide comment about how it could be kept secret without Roddenberry around to leak it (apparently disregarding the fact that the Nemesis script was leaked, though I don't recall that rating a mention).

No doubt some readers won't be bothered by it, or won't even pick up on it. For some reason, it stood out dramatically for me. I may well have enjoyed it quite a bit without that; as it was, it was interesting enough, but with a glaring annoying feature.

I actually make a habit of buying library books which I enjoy, incidentally - formed from a combination of my library's habit of discarding books and my own hoarding tendencies. Glad I did it this way.

with a snide comment about how it could be kept secret without Roddenberry around to leak it

Click to expand...

Roddenberry made no secret of leaking Spock's death (ST II), via Susan Sackett, at a big UK convention: he hoped to change the death of Spock. And he did. It got moved from the first act to the climax, and in a "Starlog" interview in the 90s Harve Bennett reflected that he should thank them for forcing their hand and improving the movie.

(apparently disregarding the fact that the Nemesis script was leaked, though I don't recall that rating a mention).

Click to expand...

The script synopsis of ST III was leaked to the fans, and was on sale at dealers' tables before the film came out. As were whole scripts of ST VI, "Generations", "First Contact", "Insurrection" and "Nemesis". But not by Roddenberry.

(apparently disregarding the fact that the Nemesis script was leaked, though I don't recall that rating a mention).

Click to expand...

The script synopsis of ST III was leaked to the fans, and was on sale at dealers' tables before the film came out. As were whole scripts of ST VI, "Generations", "First Contact", "Insurrection" and "Nemesis". But not by Roddenberry.

Click to expand...

Therin, that's his point - the book apparently makes mention of a habit unfairly connected only to Roddenberry in the text - and makes no such mention of others doing it, like you have in this thread (or explaining why he did it with Khan). For a reader not-in-the-know, it might paint a more negative image of R than applies to anyone else in the show - that seems to be donners22's point.

Therin, that's his point - the book apparently makes mention of a habit unfairly connected only to Roddenberry in the text - and makes no such mention of others doing it.

Click to expand...

You say "apparently", so I assume you haven't read it.

It's a totally different situation. Roddenberry leaked a single plot point and claimed his very public victory. And, as Creative Consultant, he felt it was his right. Fans connected with the various later productions leaked whole scripts.

I don't see that it's necessary to expect the book to contain a laundry list of all leaks and actor foibles and scandals just because it mentions some of Gene Roddenberry's leaks, foibles and scandals.

And yes, if he'd still been alive and disliked something JJ Abrams was doing, he'd repeat his ST II strategy. But JJ Abrams was also successful in keeping both his scripts under wraps.

Yah, I haven't read it, although it'd be nice! I was just interpolating because it seemed you both had some common ground (despite your disagreement): did not wish to seem like I was coming out against you, therin.

As for the wider issues of tiffs and disagreements: I think, for an analytic companion, they really are important (within reason). You have both educated me on issues that did affect the final products (II and Voyager, for example) in the course of your disagreement.